Author
Topic: No 7D Mark II? [CR1] (Read 81490 times)

Given the way the 7D has stomped the D300 and the D300s, you have got to think that Nikon will be coming full bore with with D400 just the way they came with guns blazing on the D800. I'm really curious to see what they offer. I'm betting it will be good so Canon you know has to plan a good response.

Credibility I give to this CR1 rumor? Probability <1%.

exactly the way I see it too! Really hope the D400 will come and be excellent, so Canon won't get by with a minimalist small upgrade to the 7D.

My two cents on this. The 7D is really a little bit odd; if one digit (xD) canons are for the pros, then the 7D was a bit weak. On the other hand there are are 3 consumer bodies (xxxxD, xxxD, xxD). This lineup somehow makes sense, just that the 7D is not really pro-grade.

This is how I see the future lineup from Canon: The 1Dx is for sport and wildlife shooters (high speed with 12fps, high ISO up to 200k). Then there will be the 5DmkIII, it looks at the moment that it won't compete with the D800, but I can see where it could be placed. the 5D will be for photojournalists who also like to make movies. The 5D is smaller more mobile package then the 1D, emphasis will be on good high ISO (low light ability, and video)But there is somethin missing in the pro sector, and this is the landscape shooters. And here could the often rumored 3D fit in, which will be aimed at the D800. A camera with high resolution (40+MP) but a slower speed.

With these 3 pro bodies, there is no room for a 7D, so the xxD will move up a little (to where the 50D was). The difference between a 600D and 60D is quite narrow at the moment, and I think it makes sense to widen this gap.

Michael7

The 7D is a great camera in which Canon made one, horrible mistake: 18mp in a crop sensor. Too much. I'd love to see the 70D or 7D II with dual SD/CF, same build, micro adjust at both ends of the lens, and a 14mp or 12mp sensor. I'm just not getting the same sharpness I got from my 40D and 50D when it comes to wildlife. The pixel level IQ is "off", IHMO. I shoot RAW, and I have no interest in jpeg wizardry at high ISO's. That is meaningless. We need to see real improvement from unprocessed RAWS at ISO 100.

Logged

smirkypants

The 7D is a great camera in which Canon made one, horrible mistake: 18mp in a crop sensor. Too much. I'd love to see the 70D or 7D II with dual SD/CF, same build, micro adjust at both ends of the lens, and a 14mp or 12mp sensor. I'm just not getting the same sharpness I got from my 40D and 50D when it comes to wildlife. The pixel level IQ is "off", IHMO. I shoot RAW, and I have no interest in jpeg wizardry at high ISO's. That is meaningless. We need to see real improvement from unprocessed RAWS at ISO 100.

The 7D sensor is ancient. The 7D2's sensor will be to the 7D what the 5D3's sensor is to the 5D2's. It's will be a massive improvement in dynamic range, noise and perceived sharpness as well.

Sensor tech is moving quickly. Sigma's Foveon X3 sensor is built with layers representing red, green and blue. You could have a cropped sensor collecting three times as much information and destroying the limitations of current sensors and certainly the abilities of your 40D.

Logged

Cornell

Clearly the 60D is priced too closely to the T3i. Over the years, Canon has effectively narrowed the price range between the xxD and the Digital Rebel. When I bought my 20D, the price of the 20D was $600 (US) more than the Rebel XT. There is now only a $150 (US) difference between the 60D and the Rebel T3i. As pointed out by the article “No 7D Mark II”, the 60D is now viewed as a Super Rebel.

In order for the 70D to move up, it would need to have enough advantages over the top-of-the-line Digital-Rebel to set it apart. This would be expected to result in an increase in price, of course. So far, so good.

The question is whether eliminating 7D and having the 70D being in the previous xxD niche – now occupied by the 7D – would be a help or a hindrance; that is, whether a higher-priced xxD would be considered to be a top-of-the line DSLR or an overpriced Super Rebel. If it’s the latter, the xxDs could wind up being viewed as another Edsel. (For the uninitiated, the Edsel was a very good car; but, consumers viewed it as overpriced and did not buy it in sufficient numbers, thereby causing the Ford to close down the line after 3 years.) It might be better for Canon to eliminate the top-of-the line Digital Rebel so that there would be more of a price spread between the Digital Rebel and the xxD. This would return the Digital Rebel to it original purpose as a consumer / entry-level DSLR, thereby emphasizing the difference between the Digital Rebel and the xxD.

The 7D is a great camera in which Canon made one, horrible mistake: 18mp in a crop sensor. Too much. I'd love to see the 70D or 7D II with dual SD/CF, same build, micro adjust at both ends of the lens, and a 14mp or 12mp sensor. I'm just not getting the same sharpness I got from my 40D and 50D when it comes to wildlife. The pixel level IQ is "off", IHMO. I shoot RAW, and I have no interest in jpeg wizardry at high ISO's. That is meaningless. We need to see real improvement from unprocessed RAWS at ISO 100.

A lot of this makes lsense. However who apart from you sees unprocessed RAW? They have to be processed to be used. Pixel Peeping is another thing that makes me go "uh?!!!" . The best camera is always the one that gets you the best final image from the appropriate media at the appropriate viewing distance. The ingredients have to be right of course, but to get a camera at a certain pricepoint to make it commercially viable, compromises have to be made. If Canon said to the market: We're going to make the new 70D a 10 megapixel camera, but those megapixel are gonna be great" the market would laugh tem out of the room. It might be ideal for you, but it would be marketing suicide

marcust

Any replacement for the 7D is going to add around 1K to the price. Me thinks that is canon's real goal here with these new bodies. Seperate the pro models from the entry/consumer models.The Rebel line will never go away, it put Canon on top of the DSLR market. BUT,They dont want to see a repeat of what happened with the 7D, getting in the hands of people that didnt know the difference between focal lenght or f-stop. (mines soft, mines broke, mines blah,blah,blah.) I'm sure there is a new 1.6 cropper coming, but it wont be for the casual person, hence the price point in the high two grand range, maybe a tad over three K. Whatever model number they put on it, I'm sure it will be a worthy successor to the 7D.

For all those 7D fanboys who got all up in my grill earlier in this thread because I said the 7D noise is horrible compared to the 5DII (and then made themselves feel better by -rep'ing me), I wasn't talking out my backside.

Click on the ISO100's and you'll see the difference. That the 7D has quite a fair bit of noise, even at base ISO100. Look at all those grey areas - they all look pretty grainy to me. No click on 5DMarkII - much cleaner. That was readily apparent to me in real world tests with the naked eye, well before I saw this link.

Seriously - being objective and telling a 7D owner that their image sensor is inferior to a full frame is like telling a religious zealot in a strange cult that their God doesn't exist. Some people seriously need to get over themselves and realize it's just a camera, and not an extension of their ego.

If there is a 7D mark II, then hopefully they take a leaf out of the D800's book - Nikon managed to do some really good work at high pixel densities, with a lot less noise than that at base ISO.

Logged

takoman46

For all those 7D fanboys who got all up in my grill earlier in this thread because I said the 7D noise is horrible compared to the 5DII (and then made themselves feel better by -rep'ing me), I wasn't talking out my backside.

Click on the ISO100's and you'll see the difference. That the 7D has quite a fair bit of noise, even at base ISO100. Look at all those grey areas - they all look pretty grainy to me. No click on 5DMarkII - much cleaner. That was readily apparent to me in real world tests with the naked eye, well before I saw this link.

Seriously - being objective and telling a 7D owner that their image sensor is inferior to a full frame is like telling a religious zealot in a strange cult that their God doesn't exist. Some people seriously need to get over themselves and realize it's just a camera, and not an extension of their ego.

If there is a 7D mark II, then hopefully they take a leaf out of the D800's book - Nikon managed to do some really good work at high pixel densities, with a lot less noise than that at base ISO.

Don't take it personally, fanboys will be fanboys. Also, don't worry I'd bet that everyone who gave you grief over a previous comment about the 7D vs. 5DmkII has probably never used a 5DmkII lol. I had a 7D and sold it because it couldn't hang with the IQ and ISO performance of my 5DmkII. The only thing the 7D had was a better AF system and faster continuous shooting. So yes, I agree with you completely that the 5DmkII was an older camera than the 7D but still smoked the 7D when it came to producing professional images. Don't get me wrong, the 7D could produce acceptable images for professional applications; but it wasn't better than a 5DmkII .

Never a 7D sensor will beat 5D2. but 7D is in a other class ( inferior class) . is just like comparing a standard compact car with a upper class sedan. always the sedan will have (in standard) more gadgets and more potent engine.

Ok, back to the topic....

I believe the 7D2 will bring more feature and improved IQ; but i think will ad another 1K to the price. 7D series WILL CONTINUE and will have his well known place as a 1DX backup.

For all those 7D fanboys who got all up in my grill earlier in this thread because I said the 7D noise is horrible compared to the 5DII (and then made themselves feel better by -rep'ing me), I wasn't talking out my backside.Click on the ISO100's and you'll see the difference. That the 7D has quite a fair bit of noise, even at base ISO100. Look at all those grey areas - they all look pretty grainy to me. No click on 5DMarkII - much cleaner. That was readily apparent to me in real world tests with the naked eye, well before I saw this link.

Seriously - being objective and telling a 7D owner that their image sensor is inferior to a full frame is like telling a religious zealot in a strange cult that their God doesn't exist. Some people seriously need to get over themselves and realize it's just a camera, and not an extension of their ego.

Don't take it personally, fanboys will be fanboys. Also, don't worry I'd bet that everyone who gave you grief over a previous comment about the 7D vs. 5DmkII has probably never used a 5DmkII lol. I had a 7D and sold it because it couldn't hang with the IQ and ISO performance of my 5DmkII. T....Don't get me wrong, the 7D could produce acceptable images for professional applications; but it wasn't better than a 5DmkII .

All spot on.

But I've been pretty happy with my 7D anyway - got a front cover wilderness calender with it......in the very conditions that the 7D most sucks at; low light, long exposure, dark areas. Horrible chroma noise in the shadows requiring a shed load of NR, which really smeared the detail.

Technically an awful photo, significantly due to the 7D's shortcomings.......but it looked great.